Sunday, March 27, 2011

Why the Libya Intervention Must Be CONFUSING! uh, CONFUSING!

Failed Governor and Fox "Queen of Confusion" (image source)

Why "Mission Confusion" is Selling Like "Whores in a  Lumber Camp"

What a remarkable coincidence.  Does anyone join MeanMesa in the conclusion that an amazing homogeneity seems to always "automatically" emerge when a few wing nut "talking points" seem to be gaining traction among the public?

We've seen it before.  For example, in commentaries on the Great Republican Depression the country's economy is now staggering through, the words "predictability" and "unpredictability" have been trotted out over and over and over as an explanation for the reluctance of the current illicit wealth holders to not actively rejoin the faltering economy.

We know, of course, that "reluctance" based on "unpredictability" is actually a carefully crafted scheme to justify waiting until wage earners have become even more desperate and the prices of troubled businesses have become even lower.

Well, a disturbingly similar mindless repetition has emerged in the US participation in the Libyan crisis.

This time, the catchword is "confusion."

Keep up.  "Economic unpredictability" has been temporarily replaced by "military mission confusion."

The possible advantages are clear enough.  If the Libyan intervention can be re-defined as "confused," yet another cheap shot at the President emerges.  If the striking obvious difference between shooting protesters in the streets of Bahrain  and ringing a city of 3 Mn Libyans, Benghazi, with a offensive Howitzer and tank columns can be obliterated by enough false comparisons, no one will be able to see through the veil.  The charge of "hypocrisy" can be leveled at Obama.

Why America is, uh, Totally Confused About the Mission

MeanMesa explored a few of the offerings on the first page of Google's response to the "confusion" question.  Here are a few samples of what pops up from such an inquiry.

"Confusion!" "Confusion!" "Confusion!"

Is anyone surprised?

CBS News - Politics
World Famous "War Expert," Donald Rumsfeld 
Read the entire article here.

Donald Rumsfeld, who served as defense secretary under President George W. Bush, said Wednesday that the Obama administration allowed the mission in Libya to become "confused" because America did not take the lead in determining a course of action. 

"I've always believed that the mission should determine the coalition," he told Politico. Instead, Rumsfeld said, America let coalition partners in Europe dictate the mission. 

Ideally, he added, "you decide what it is you want to do and then you get other countries to assist you in doing that." But in Libya, he said, "the opposite was done," leaving the mission "confused." 

"If peoples' lives are at risk and you're using military forces, you need to have a rather clear understanding as to who's in charge and who's making the decisions," said Rumsfeld. 

Read the entire article here.

Leader: The dangers facing the west’s confused mission in Libya

The fear remains that intervention will do more harm than good. 

For the third time in a decade, Britain is engaged in a major military action in a Muslim-majority country. David Cameron and his allies have resurrected the doctrine of liberal interventionism, which had been poisoned by the disastrous invasion of Iraq, to justify the use of force in Libya. The notion of a "responsibility to protect", born of the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia in the mid-1990s, is one that justly retains political support. It was right to intervene in Kosovo in 1999 to halt Slobodan Milosevic's murderous drive for a "Greater Serbia" and it was right to intervene in Sierra Leone in 2000 to defend that country's democratically elected government from the nihilistic Revolutionary United Front.

My Central Jersey
Read the entire article here.

U.S. confused about mission in Libya

Are we protecting civilians or trying to remove Gaddafi?

Is it just me? Am I the only one who's utterly confused about the rationale, goals, tactics and strategy of the U.S.-led military intervention in Libya?

Thought not.

I call it a U.S.-led operation because, people, let's be real. Without U.S. diplomatic leadership, there would have been no U.N. Security Council resolution. Without U.S. military leadership, there would have been no coordinated shock-and-awe attack to put dictator Moammar Gaddafi's rampaging forces back on their heels. One of these days, when our allies finish their bickering, we'll hear a grand announcement that someone else is in charge — maybe NATO, maybe France. Don't believe it. The United States will be functionally in charge, and thus on the hook, until this ends.

So what the hell are we doing? I realize that President Barack Obama and his advisers have answered this question many times, but I feel it's necessary to keep asking until the answers begin to make sense.

The News Star
 Read the entire article here.

Libyan mission is most confusing


I am confused. England, France and the United States went to the United Nations and got permission to bomb and kill Libyans to keep them from killing other Libyans. We all know that it is George Bush's fault, because he started it in Iraq.

Now it all is clear. Are we letting Hillary take out her frustrations on Gadhafi since she can do nothing about Bill and his women?

Bush was wrong when he went into Iraq on the say so of the United Nations and Obama is wrong now. Congress alone has the power to declare war. Here we have nothing, except people who want to take over from Gadhafi. Who are they? Does anyone know them? We are told that France does, but who can trust the French? We have spent or committed to spend one and a half billion dollars for what? French, English and Italian oil? How does that help us? I am still confused But I am sure the politicians in Washington can explain it to me.

Joseph W. Cole Jr.

So, is the Libyan intervention actually "confusing?"

Not if you read the UN Security Council Resolution.

Not if you listen to what the President has said repeatedly about it.

Not if you look at a map of Libya.

Not if you take five minutes to size up what Gaddafi is trying to do at Benghazi and how different in murderous scope it is from other cases which aren't particularly similar.

Next, we unavoidably arrive at the second most popular propaganda attack on the President. It emerges from all sorts of cheap, false comparisons between what is happening in Libya and what is happening in other Middle East countries.
The favorite "pregnant" question -- always introduced with a disturbing little elitist whine on the pundits voice -- is engineered to promote a cynical background of "unpredictability" and "incompetence" in the listener's view of the President.

It usually starts with something like this.

"If we are going to do this in Libya, what about Syria or Yemen.  The dictators in those countries are shooting protesters, too.  Why are we going into Libya and not these other places? Is it because Obama's a hypocrite?"

It goes on further.  "The American people are confused -- they don't understand the mission.  Obama should have explained it to them again, and again, and again.  The American people don't understand the mission.  They are confused."

"And, by the way, the American people are confused.  They don't trust this President.  They are confused.  They don't understand the mission.  Why doesn't the President explain the mission to them?  They are confused."

"And, by the way, what about the exit strategy?  The American people are confused about the exit strategy.  Why doesn't the President explain the exit strategy?  The American people are confused."

The "dirty Black man," "Kenyan anti-colonialist," "anti-American socialist" stuff comes out later.

The "exit strategy" question really becomes difficult for the President.  For one reason, he has made it abundantly clear that we don't intend to "enter," making the "exit" even harder to explain.

For grins, ask a neo-con wing nut exactly what it is about the mission which is confusing.  Once the talking points begin to be "used up" in his panicky, breathless response, this "precious" -- yet disgustingly artificial -- "confusion" becomes as gaseous as the rest of the right wing "mouth junk."

Of course, we all expect the new talking pundits to insist on knowing every "nut and bolt" of the Obama plan for Libya -- otherwise, they will not be able to sustain their PR attack by using even the slightest deviation as a weapon.

Finally, we can return to "unpredictability" for a moment.  Our perpetual critics of everything the President does are, it turns out, a bit "risk averse" and "codependent."  In this case, as with all the others, their pathetic, weird control issues are vomiting out front and center.

The Voice of the Public at

"Down Home Harry's Happy Times"

Just to drive this point home a little, let's drop into "Down Home Harry's Happy Times Motel -- Bowling, Beer & Breakfast" lounge to try to catch the mood of the folks on the street.

"Excuse me, sir. I'm conducting a public opinion poll about Libya. Do you have a few minutes to tell me what you're thinking?"

"You betch'a. I know 'xactly whut I'm thinking."

"Great! And, what's that?"

"Wahl, no one knows whut th' mission is. Thu mission is confusin' 'cuz the President, he don't know whut th' mission is. Thu 'Merican people don't know, neither. It's confusin' cuz the President never told no one whut th' mission is."

"Can you tell me a little more about why it is that you find it so confusing?"

"Shore. Becuz the President done criticized Bush fer doin' thu 'xact same thing. Plus, there ain't no exit strategy. They means thu' mission is confusin', right?"

"But the UN wrote out exactly what the mission was in the Resolution, and the President said he was doing exactly what the Resolution said. The President said that there would be no American boots on the ground in Libya and that the Air Force was going to try to stop Gaddafi's plan to slaughter his citizens. Didn't you think that was pretty clear?"

"Nope. Thu problem is there's no exit strategy. Plus, the American people are confused about whut the mission is. Ah mean, the President said we wasn't going to throw Gaddafi out, but then he started bombing the tanks and stuff. See, A'hm confused cuz Obama ain't no leader."

"But if there aren't any troops there on the ground, why would we need an exit strategy?"

"On account of the fact thet we don't have one. That's why we need one. Plus, the mission is confusing. How do we know when thu troops are gonna' git pulled out? Plus, wha' don't Obama git in there to hep them other folks tryin' to get liberty? See, it's confused. No one knows whut the mission is."

"So, you don't think it was a good idea to try to stop the slaughter?"

"Wahl, first off there ain't no slaughter cuz the tanks got blowed up, 'n second there ain't no exit strategy. Obama ain't gonna' fool me with some hare brained scheme to jest use the Air Force anytime he wants when there ain't no exit strategy and no one understands what thu hell the mission is in the first place."

"Well, I can see that you've thought about this quite a bit. Thanks for the interview."

The President is going to try one more time to explain the mission in his address to the nation Monday evening.

The speech will probably not be on the television in "Down Home Harry's Happy ...whatever," oh, just forget it, because it won't be on FOX News.

A Couple of Parting Thoughts

1.) Think about it. If you were simply another Middle East dictator who was considering slaughtering a few hundred of your citizens wouldn't "unpredictable" be a bigger problem for you than something definite?

2.) One last note. We Americans have paid heavily for the military we presently enjoy. It is filled with honorable, well trained, well disciplined, determined men and women who are our fellow citizens here. Considered as a whole, it is as noble as any army has ever been throughout history.

It is also one hell of a bad ass outfit. Given a competent Commander in Chief to lead it, our military doesn't lose a scrap or fail its mission. Ever.

How have we been convinced to think so badly about the US military? Even more interesting, who, exactly, might benefit from the widespread distrust and negative assessment of it? Why are the streets and offices of the United States filled with cynical, negative people who constantly expect the US military to fail?

MeanMesa's compliments to the Commander in Chief, the elected President of the United States, Barack Obama.

No comments:

Post a Comment